According to Monsell (1996), one of the ‘unsolved mysteries of mind’ is how exactly verbal task instructions are translated into, and are used to control behavior. The present dissertation attempts to shed some light on one aspect of this mystery, namely on how the wording of task instructions affects the codes and processes commonly associated with response selection, a processing ‘stage’ assumed to be central in action control. The main question is whether or not the response labels used in the instructions of manual two-choice responses affect how responses are coded and accessed. If instruction determines response coding, then it should be possible to demonstrate that identical tasks are performed differently if response instructions differ.

In five experiments, I manipulated response instructions for spatially organized key­press responses. Specifically, I instructed left and right keypresses on a manual task either as left vs. right or as blue vs. green keypresses and tested whether such variations in response instructions affect two different types of compatibility effects.

The first set of experiments (Experiments 1-3) used a dual task procedure that, in addition to the manual task, required either “left” vs. “right” or “blue” vs. “green” verbalizations on a concurrently performed verbal task. When responses on both the manual and the verbal task were instructed in terms of location (Experiment 1) or color (Experiment 2), then compatible responses on the two tasks (e.g., “blue” verbalizations followed by a blue keypress) were faster than incompatible responses. However, when the verbal task required “left” vs. “right” responses whereas manual keypresses were instructed as blue vs. green (Experiment 3), then no compatibility effects were observed.

The second set of experiments (Experiments 4 and 5) extended these findings by employing the same response-instruction logic to a Simon-like task, in which left and right keypress responses were arbitrarily mapped to centrally presented stimuli (letter identity). Go/No-go signals that varied in location indicated whether the prepared response was to be executed or not. Color instructions of the response keys (Experiment 5) significantly reduced the Simon effect (i.e., faster responses when response location and irrelevant Go/No-go location correspond) observed under spatial response instructions (Experiment 4).

Taken together, these results suggest that response labels used in the instruction directly determine the codes that are used to control responding, and that non-spatial coding can override spatial coding under non-spatial response instructions. The findings are discussed with respect to their relevance for contemporary coding accounts of compatibility and more general theories of intentional control and automaticity.